i watch 2 or 3 things i know about her, regularly. this title has a direct link to that movie (his own movie), which has the shot of the swirl of coffee that inspired scorsese for taxi driver

some of his movies are better to think about than to watch. 2 or 3 things is a wonderful transitional moment, imo. i'm going to quote it and tie everything together:

maybe an object is what serves as a link between subjects, allowing us to live in society, to be together. but since social relations are always ambiguous, since my thoughts divide as much as unite, and my words unite by what they express and isolate by what they omit, since a wide gulf separates my subjective certainty of myself from the objective truth others have of me, since i constantly end up guilty, even though i feel innocent, since every moment changes my daily life, since i always fail to communicate, to understand, to love and be loved, and every failure deepens my solitude, since --

since i cannot escape the objectivity crushing me nor the subjectivity expelling me, since i cannot rise to a state of being nor collapse into nothingness, i have to listen, more than ever i have to look around me at the world, my fellow creature, my brother.

the world alone. today, when revolutions are impossible, and bloody wars loom, when capitalism is unsure of its rights, and the working class is in retreat, when the lightning progress of science makes future centuries hauntingly present, when the future is more present than the present, when distant galaxies are on my doorstep. my fellow creature, my brother.

where do we start? but start what? god created heaven and earth, sure, but that's too easy. we should put it better: say that the limits of language are the world's limits, that the limits of my language are my world's limits, and that when i speak, i limit the world, i finish it. and one inevitable and mysterious day, death will come and abolish these limits, and there will be no questions nor answers. it will all be a blur. but if by chance things come into focus again, it may only be with the advent of conscience. everything will follow from there.

is this really supposed to be a 3D movie? Shit looks like it was shot on Hi-8, what's the point? Still seems interesting nonetheless. I don't think I actually like any Godard, besides maybe Sympathy For The Devil.

The last post is about how shitty it seems to look, and I thought, too, that it would look shitty. The trailer made me cringe and I didn't like Film Socialisme. That's why I didn't watch the movie in May when it played in one big multiplex in Paris. Well, I was wrong. You're not surprised. It's not amazingly shitty, it's just amazingly great.

Godard talked about how, because everyone talks about "high definition" he wanted to do "low-resolution", by "esprit de contradiction". This spirit of contradiction led him to 3D. He said 3D isn't interesting, and that's why he decided to use 3D. I complained a lot about digital in the shoutbox; I have nothing against its existence, but it is used without thought. It looks flat. And film is forgotten. Everyone isn't just "fucking cheating" as PTA said. Everyone seems to do fucking nothing. Well, probably not; Fincher works, he's here.

Anyway, Godard does digital. Low-definition. 3D. And it looks great. Obviously, he isn't looking for a way to look "good" which is, nowadays, to say that it looks as great, or even better, than what it would look like in the real world; I don't watch a movie to see how my everyday universe looks like. I just don't. I want the camera to grasp something else.

Godard manage to show us the world in digital, with that digital look, "real" look, with something else. The movie is a river, a dreamlike experience, all that. It helps, of course. It is compared to painting. One central quote is from Claude Monet. It is impressionism. Colors, sounds. Everything is a surprise.

You have two couples and a dog.

The last time I experience the flow of a movie so vividly the movie was called Tree of Life. It is nice, sometimes, to experience cinema be cinema. A unique language, a different language.

One central quote is from Claude Monet. It is impressionism. Colors, sounds. Everything is a surprise.

so i heard the quote and i thought it was good and everything, then i heard claude monet at the end and i like was oh great i didn't listen enough

i think i have a really healthy relationship with godard and his movies, part of me responds to them while i watch, and i think he explores the idea of being a movie

there's creepy sound stuff in this. he moves sound around and there's a couple loud noises and breaks in silence when not quite expected. classic godard but also there's 3d. twice he splits the visual-layer of his shot by panning with a character who walks offscreen, while keeping one character locked in a static shot, which character is reflected in the pan, then the character returns to the static shot of the person who's been half of the panning shot

i think godard appreciates that my thoughts drift in and out of his movies as i watch them. there's some yabbering to listen to while watching.

there's a shit reference, and the dog has a readable personality this movie reminded me of keep your right up and it deserves like 1 million memes. there's a shot over a table that's one of those french shots where you see the hands and mid-bodies of three humans and one of them is picking up books and flipping them while inspecting and two of them are having a conversation while passing each other their smart phones